If you know someone that collects cards and could use some sleeves, why not get them a Gift Certificate to PerfectFitSleeves.com, CLICK HERE

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Treason: "Violation or betryal of the allegiance that a person owes his sovereign or his country."

So, wanting to break apart the union and thus throw away your allegiance to the U.S is Not treason?

If I have misunderstood something here, then I'll admit to it and say I'm wrong, but I believe that this definition which I have posted is correct and I believe that the act of secession is treason.

Originally Posted by Wickabee

How they can possibly be within the law yet anti-constitutional is beyond me, perhaps you can explain that.

I have tried my best to explain it, their current actions are not anti-constitutional (everyone has a right to make petitions, I get that) but they are WANTING to become anti-constitutional because they don't like our rules.

It's like signing a petition saying that you no longer wish to abide by the rules, how are we on two different steps, it seems pretty clear to me.

Originally Posted by Wickabee

In the end, you're doing them a favour by opposing it so hard. You're turning a statement into a full fledged issue. Good work.

The only thing I'm opposing is secession, if these people no longer wish to follow the rules, then please don't drag your states into the mud with you, you can do what Madman suggested......renounce your U.S citizenship, it's quite simple.

Attempts at or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the country's politics since its birth. Some have argued for a constitutional right of secession and others for a natural right of revolution. The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

So the way the states are doing this is illegal. They can not petition the White House. They need to petition the other states or revolt. I do not think revolution will work so well.

Although James Madison, the Father of the Constitution said this:

In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the separate issue of secession was also discussed. James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", spoke out against secession as a constitutional right.[32] In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification, Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

I would think the majority in a state would have to prove intolerable oppression in a court. Madison, the master wordsmith, was vague, as usual. Love that man. My second favorite President.

Attempts at or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the country's politics since its birth. Some have argued for a constitutional right of secession and others for a natural right of revolution. The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessi..._United_States

I wonder if "intolerable oppression" would include jailing someone for making a video (in blatant violation of their first amendment rights) in order to blame them for a terrorist attack on an embassy before an important election? I wonder if the U.S. citizens that had their due process rights violated when they were killed by the drone sent by President Obama felt "intolerably oppressed"?

I think that people should worry a lot less about some people signing petitions and focus on the corruption and constitutional violations happening with our elected politicians.

The latest is that General Petraeus provided initial intelligence that the Benghazi attack was Al Qaeda related. The reference to Al Qaeda was stripped after reaching the White House and they sent Susan Rice out to peddle the youtube video caused the attack meme, which the White House continued to lie about for weeks. The Petraues revelation puts into question the latest statements the President has made about the White House simply passing on the best information provided by the CIA.

in 1869 a supreme judge ruled on this on it seems to be the marker on all cases of secession.

he United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that unilateral secession was unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

So in other words, petitioning and requesting secession was ruled constitutional?

Not decided. The way the petitoning would be done is to all of the other states and they would decide if the state could leave. It has not been tried, so I do not know if it is legal. The courts would have to decide.